5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Elektrostal, the Moscow Region.
6.  She had been receiving a retirement pension since 1991. In November 2005 she asked a pension authority to up-rate her pension on the basis of the fact that she had worked in hazardous industries. The latter disagreed and the applicant appealed to the Elektrostal Town Court (“Town Court”).
7.  By judgment of 31 May 2006 the Town Court chaired by Judge T. ordered the pension authority to up-rate the applicant's pension starting from 1 November 2005. The court based its findings on the Law on Labour Pensions of 2001 (“Pension Law”). On 4 August 2006 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment on appeal.
8.  On 10 May 2007 the Chief Department of the Pension Fund no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region (“Pension Fund”) lodged with the Moscow Regional Court (“Regional Court”) an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 31 May 2006. This application was never examined. However, on 29 August 2007 the President of the Regional Court wrote a letter to the first-instance court which stated as follows:
“The Moscow Regional Court sends the case Baturlova V.A. v. GU GUPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region ... and a statement of complaint by the GU UPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region against the judgment of the Elektrostal Town Court of 31 May 2006 for the re-examination in accordance with Chapter 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
[The Town] Court examined the scope of the pension rights of the plaintiff...
[The principles] of the examination of the scope of the pension rights ... have been set out in the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005 ... and the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 in the case of Nitsievskaya v. State Agency - Chief Department of the Pension Fund no. 5 of Moscow and the Moscow Region.
Delivering a judgment ... at variance with the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005 and the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 discloses a judicial error, such judgment cannot be regarded lawful. With the purpose of securing consistency in the case-law ... the statement of complaint by the GU UPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region ... against the above said judgment in the case of Baturlova V.A ... v. GU GUPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region is being sent for reconsideration on the ground of newly discovered circumstances.”
9.  On 1 October 2007 the Pension Fund lodged with the Town Court an application for quashing of the judgment of 31 May 2006 and re-opening of the applicant's case on the ground of newly discovered circumstances. It stated that the Supreme Court's judgment of 2 March 2007 in the Nitsievskaya case, which gave a different interpretation of the Pension Law, had been a circumstance warranting the re-opening of the Baturlova case. The applicant argued that the application had been introduced outside the three-month time-limit.
10.  By decision (определение) of 23 October 2007, the Town Court presided over by the same judge who examined the applicant's case in 2006 granted the application. It held as follows:
“[T]he method of the assessment of pension rights ... has been set out in paragraph 13 of the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005 ... and in the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 in the case of Nitsievskaya v. State Agency - Chief Department of the Pension Fund no. 5 of Moscow and the Moscow Region...
...
[T]he court finds that reconsideration of such a judgment [as in the applicant's case] can be done by way of additional proceedings on the ground of newly discovered circumstances ... which allow to remedy a judicial error ... that resulted in a violation of the rights of the defendant [the Pension Fund]...
[T]he arguments by the applicant that the reconsideration ... of the judgment of 31 May 2007 is impossible and that the time-limit for lodging such a request was missed are to be dismissed on the ground that the Judgment of the Supreme Court ..., which entails legal consequences, was rendered on 2 March 2007. The defendant had applied, to the competent judicial authorities, for reconsideration of the judgment [of 31 May 2006] on 10 May 2007, that is to say before the three-month time-limit ... expired.
In the light of the foregoing ... the court
DECIDED:
The judgment of 31 May 2006 ... is to be quashed.
The re-examination of the merits of the dispute is to be scheduled on 23 October 2007 at 12.15 p.m.”
11.  By judgment (решение) of the same date, the Town Court held that the applicant's claim for a higher pension was to be dismissed in full. Its findings were based on the Law on Labour Pensions and the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court no. 25 of 20 December 2005. On 29 November 2007, the Moscow Regional Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment on appeal.